AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—These two appeals by the Insurer and the claimants are directed against the same judgment and award dated 06/04/2010 passed in MVC No. 803/2009, by the XIII Additional Small Cause Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-15), (for short'' Tribunal''). The Tribunal by its judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs. 9,14,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, as against the claim of the claimants for a sum of Rs. 80/- lakhs, on account of the death of the deceased Sri. Deva Datta, in the road traffic accident, on the ground that, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is disproportionate to the income of the deceased and is liable to be reduced as contended by the Insurer and that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and it requires to be enhanced, as contended by the claimants.
In brief, the facts of the case are:
The claimants are the mother, wife and children of the deceased Sri. Deva Datta. On account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, they filed a claim petition before the Tribunal u/s 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation contending that, on 10.11.2008 at about 11.15 a.m., deceased was riding his motor bike bearing Reg. No. KA.05.EY.2889 and when he came near junction of Vishwamanava Double road and Maruthi Temple road, at that time, the driver of the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA.18A. 1008 came in a rash and negligent manner from Saraswathipuram and dashed against the motor bike of the deceased. Due to which, deceased fell down and sustained severe injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Department of Mysore Medical college and Forensic Medicine Research Institute, Mysore, wherein, he was succumbed to the injuries.
It is the further case of the claimants that, deceased was aged about 32 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident. He was an Film Actor, producer and Land Developer and earning Rs. 1/- lakh per month and looking after the welfare of the family. Due to his untimely death, claimants have lost their bread earner and put to mental shock and agony.
The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, has allowed the claim petition in part, awarding the compensation of Rs. 9,14,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, both the Insurer and the claimants have presented these appeals.
We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the Insurer and claimants in these appeals.
Learned counsel Sri. A.N. Krishnaswamy, appearing for the Insurer, at the outset, submitted that the Tribunal, without any justification has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month for calculating loss of dependency and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads is on higher side and is liable to be reduced. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified.
Per contra, learned counsel Sri. R. Nataraj, appearing for claimants, inter-alia, submitted that, the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month which is on lower side and contrary to the materials available on file. To substantiate the said submission, he submitted that the deceased was an income tax assessee and he has filed Exs. P12, 13 in Form No. 2D for the year 2005-06 to 2006-07, Ex. P14 is the income tax acknowledgement form and Ex. P15 is the ITR file Form No. 5 for the year 2008-09. Further, he submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection and towards loss of consortium is on lower side and it needs to be enhanced reasonably.
In reply, learned counsel appearing for Insurer submitted that, the average income of the deceased for the last three years may be taken, after deducting 10% towards income tax, deducting Professional Tax and after deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased, the loss of dependency may be awarded. Further, he submitted so far as the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for claimants that the compensation awarded towards conventional heads is inadequate is concerned, that, this Court is consistently awarding a sum of Rs. 45,000/- following the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma''s case and therefore, the same may be considered in accordance with law.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after careful perusal of the material available on record at threadbare, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for our consideration is:
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?
The occurrence of the accident and the resultant death of the deceased is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that claimants are the mother, wife and children of the deceased. The deceased was aged about 32 years, he was Film Actor, Producer and Land Developer and only earning member of the family. Due to his untimely death, claimant No. 1 has lost her son, claimant No. 2 has lost her life partner and claimant Nos. 3 and 4 are deprived of the love and affection, security and guidance of their father. It is the further case of the claimants that, deceased was an income tax assessee and he has filed Form No. 2D for the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 showing his income and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased as per his IT returns. There is some substance in the said submission and this fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the Insurer and he has fairly submitted that the average income of the deceased for the three years may be taken to determine just and reasonable income of the deceased.
In the light of the above submission made by learned counsel for both the parties, we have gone through Exs. P12 to 15. It is a fact that, deceased has filed form No. 2D for the Assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 showing his income as Rs. 1,00,680/-, Rs. 2,05,030/- and Rs. 2,35,358/- respectively. The total of which comes to Rs. 5,41,068/-. If the same is divided by 3, the average income comes to Rs. 1,80,356/- p.a. Out of which, if 10% ( Rs. 18,035/-) towards income Tax and Rs. 2,400/- towards PT is deducted, the remaining income comes to Rs. 1,59,921/-. Out of which, if 1/4th ( Rs. 39,980/-) is deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased since there are four dependants, his net annual income comes to Rs. 1,19,941/- p.a. Accepting the Multiplier of ''16'' adopted by the Tribunal since deceased was aged about 32 years as just and proper, we re-determine the loss of dependency at Rs. 19,19,056/- instead of Rs. 8,64,000/- and accordingly, it is awarded.
However, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads, such as, towards loss of consortium, towards loss of love and affection, towards loss of estate and towards transportation and funeral expenses is just and reasonable and it does not call for interference. In all, the claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs. 19,69,056/- instead of Rs. 9,14,000/-. There would be an enhancement of Rs. 10,55,056/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the Insurer is dismissed as devoid of merits and the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part.
The impugned judgment and award dated 06/04/2010 passed in MVC No. 803/2009, by the XIII Additional Small Cause Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-15), is hereby modified by awarding a sum of Rs. 10,55,056/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
The Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 10,55,056/-with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of the petition till its realization, within three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.
Immediately on such deposit by the Insurer, out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 10,55,056/-, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of the claimant No. 2, in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, for a period of ten years and renewable by another ten years, with liberty reserved to the claimant No. 2 to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically.
A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of the claimant No. 1, in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, for a period of five years and renewable by another five years, with liberty reserved to the claimant No. 1 to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically.
A sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the names of each of the claimant Nos. 3 and 4, in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, till they attain 30 years, with liberty reserved to the claimant No. 2 to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically, for the welfare of claimant Nos. 3 and 4 till they attain 21 years, and from 22 years to 30 years, they are entitled to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically.
The remaining sum of Rs. 1,55,056/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the claimant No. l, mother of the deceased and claimant No. 2, wife of the deceased in equal proportion.
The amount deposited by the Insurer shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.
Office is directed to draw the award, accordingly.
In view of the disposal of the main matters on merits, the relief sought by the Insurer in Misc. Cvl. 21649/2010 in M.F.A. No. 9621 of 2010, does not survive for consideration and hence, it is disposed off as having become infructuous.